Are there any perceived constraints to the implementation of intercultural teaching?

4.3.4.1. Low motivation: Lack of ability vs. lack of cognitive challenge

The perceived popularity of Languages as a curriculum subject among teachers was

overall positive, with a cumulative 68.4% of teachers perceiving languages as

popular or quite popular within their school context. No teacher however rated

Languages as ‘very popular’ on the given scale. Some teachers commented in the

interview that this was related to the ability level of some learners:

Teacher A:

‘MFL isn’t very popular, especially with lower ability students.’

Teacher C however felt this may be due to the perceived lack of progress and

cognitive challenge presented to learners:

‘Students often seem to be disinterested because of how basic the topics are; they lack relevance to them, especially as they cover more complex and challenging topics in other subjects [...] I think also, because we often teach from word, to sentence, to text level, students might feel that they are making too little progress, and they might then think that they’re not good in this subject as a result, so I can see how off-putting this could be as a learner.’

4.3.4.2. Lack of intercultural opportunities

The place of trips and visits to French-speaking countries was important for a

majority of the teachers surveyed, with 68.4% of all teachers agreeing or strongly

agreeing that they were important in the development of intercultural understanding

for students. However, whilst this was an important aspect of developing ICU, many

teachers (52.7%) also noted that few of their students had had the opportunity to

enjoy a visit or trip to a French-speaking country, with a further 5.3% unsure as to

whether or not they had been given this opportunity. Trips and visits abroad also

featured in several teachers’ interviews:

Teacher A:

‘There are not a lot of opportunities for students to go abroad; ours can only go to one residential trip to France, and they can also join the annual ski trip to Austria - but because it’s not Languages led the focus isn’t really on developing language.’ Teacher C:

‘We can’t do exchanges anymore; when I was learning a language, that’s the experience I remember the most, and they’re the best trips to really develop language skills. But now we can’t do exchanges anymore, there are so many potential issues to do with safeguarding, and schools just don’t want to take the risk anymore.’

Teacher G:

‘I think my students do have opportunities to travel abroad on a regular basis, but that’s if we count holidays with the family. Even though we run a few trips here, they’re only open to certain year groups and only for 30 or 40 kids at once.’

4.3.4.3. The influence of learners’ context

The perceived level to which the subject was valued within teachers’ school context

was more nuanced, with the same proportion (68.4%) stating that Languages was

valued by ‘some’, rather than ‘all’ or ‘most’. Parental attitudes were also seen by

some teachers in the interview as a potential barrier to students’ motivation for

learning languages and for the development on intercultural understanding:

Teacher G:

‘I think that MFL is a valued subject in school, but pupils don’t always see the relevance, and parents aren’t always that encouraging’.

4.3.4.4. Educational policy context as a barrier to ICU

A level of uncertainty was also a recurrent theme, especially where the place of

Languages in the curriculum could be seen as fluctuating and therefore its status as

unstable. This was reflected in Teacher G’s interview:

‘I think that language learning is promoted and supported in this school as they are obligatory in KS4. As we are getting a new Headteacher, this may change’.

Teacher A also reflected this flux in the status of Languages:

‘Languages were only compulsory for one year, they’re not any longer.’

While the view of teachers on this aspect was divided, regardless of their preference

with regards to the place of ICU in formal assessment frameworks, none of the

teachers could agree, strongly or otherwise, with the questionnaire statement ‘The

current examination model takes into account and rewards cultural understanding’, with 89.5% either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing, and the same proportion of teachers finding that the current examination model was actually acting

as a barrier to the development of intercultural understanding. This aspect also

featured regularly in teachers’ interviews:

Teacher B:

‘The current GCSE exams don’t take culture into account at all, and actually prevent teachers from allocating time in lessons to do this.’

Teacher C:

‘I feel that the way we assess students, especially at KS4, stops teachers and students from learning anything apart from the language they need for the exams.’

Teacher F:

‘KS4 is a really poor foundation for helping the students to appreciate the culture of learning another language. The Speaking Controlled Assessment, in particular, is not indicative of what a genuine experience in speaking French should be, and it’s not very interactive at all. Role Plays were much better [...] Unfortunately, today, everything is measured in exam success, so there’s little time to develop a love or appreciation for the culture of the country [...] KS4 seems to always be about Controlled Assessments, which is a shame - but it’s weighed at 60% so you can’t really ignore it!’

Teacher H:

‘The pressures from school to prove a child’s level mean that more and more, you’re focused on moving from unit to unit, and doing regular assessments. This means that lessons based on a pure cultural element get put back or reduced.’

4.3.4.5. Time constraints and the planning of materials for teaching ICU

94.7% of teachers stated in the questionnaire that they planned their own teaching

materials (cumulative total of strongly agree / agree responses) - with teachers

planning the materials for the delivery of the content prescribed by the textbook,

rather than setting their own sequencing or linguistic or topical content. Within their

own school, 89.5% of teachers said they shared resources with colleagues, therefore

implying that some of the resources they used themselves were borrowed.

Interestingly however, only 47.4% of them stated that they shared materials with

colleagues outside of their own school. Both findings relating to the collegiality

aspect in material design and use can also be related to the finding that 57.9% of

teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed when asked if they had time to plan

their own teaching resources, with a further 21.1% unsure. This lack of planning time

can therefore be seen both as motivation for collegiality with immediate colleagues,

and as a barrier to collegiality beyond the boundaries of teachers’ own schools. The

issue of time constraints on the planning of materials for teaching was also reflected

in teachers’ interviews:

Teacher A:

‘I just don’t have enough time during PPA to plan my own resources.’ Teacher G:

‘While I’m happy to create my own resources, I do like to have a textbook to fall back on for good reading and listening exercises. Creating these from scratch would be too time-consuming and I find the structure of using a textbook both beneficial for teachers and pupils.’

In addition to the lack of time as a barrier to planning materials (whether for ICU or

not), the issue of lack of instrumental value attributed to planning materials for

developing ICU was also identified in some teacher interviews:

Teacher A:

‘Especially at KS4, the content of what I teach is determined by the exam. The main objective [at Key Stage 4] is to ensure exam success. The only reference I may make to cultural aspects is when we cover things like festivals [a topic on the examination syllabus].’

This reinforces the view that cultural aspects are only covered in so far as they

respond to an instrumental need to learn the language for the purpose of examination

success, rather than as a worthwhile aspect of language learning in its own right.

4.4. To what extent can CLIL materials develop learners’